Sen is not a capability theorist

Abstract

Abstract:This paper aims to show that, contrary to the standard understanding of his work, Sen's idea of justice does not consist in the defense of a capability theory. Under the dominant capability-centered view, Sen's idea of justice is indeed characterized principally by a switch of focus from utility to capability. We demonstrate that this view amounts to the application of formal welfarism to capabilities. We reject this characterization and defend instead a heuristic account of the status of capability in Sen's thought: capability was introduced to make a point against welfarism, but this does not imply that a commitment to a capability theory. The capability-centered view is shown to be inconsistent with Sen's idea of justice, because the latter requires agents to be involved in the definition of their own welfare. Our study of the status of capability in Sen's view of justice enables us to relocate his main contribution and to build the basis for an alternative theory of justice. Keywords:Capability, welfarism, justice, operationalization, paternalism, agency, public reasoning JEL codes:Sen is not a capability theorist Abstract. This paper aims to show that, contrary to the standard understanding of his work, Sen's idea of justice does not consist in the defense of a capability theory. Under the dominant capabilitycentered view, Sen's idea of justice is indeed characterized principally by a switch of focus from utility to capability. We demonstrate that this view amounts to the application of formal welfarism to capabilities. We reject this characterization and defend instead a heuristic account of the status of capability in Sen's thought: capability was introduced to make a point against welfarism, but this does not imply that a commitment to a capability theory. The capability-centered view is shown to be inconsistent with Sen's idea of justice, because the latter requires agents to be involved in the definition of their own welfare. Our study of the status of capability in Sen's view of justice enables us to relocate his main contribution and to build the basis for an alternative theory of justice.

'Positional Views' as the Cornerstone of Sen's Idea of Justice

“…Our second hypothesis is that Sen's idea of justice is driven by two main values or principles: human agency and public reasoning, as previously defended (Crocker 2007, Crocker & Robeyns 2009, Alkire 2010, Davis 2012, Baujard & Gilardone 2017, Gilardone 2018b, Bréban & Gilardone 2019. But these 6 We do not preclude the relevance of the capability approach; and we do not suggest neither that capabilities have no importance in Sen's approach to justice, far from this.…”

“…It is obvious that Sen's huge background in the field of social choice theory has truly been influential in his way of tackling the issue of justice 10 . However we have shown elsewhere that the framework of formal welfarism standard in social choice theory is misleading to understand Sen's constructive contribution (Baujard & Gilardone 2017). Formal welfarism is a framework to assess social states according to some justice principles, embedded in two steps: a material is first defined, whatever it is, and aggregation is debated as a second step.…”

“…Baujard (2016) established how this framework, standard in social choice theory, became central in the general way of understanding justice. We have shown elsewhere that Sen's constructive proposal precisely does not fit in this framework (Baujard & Gilardone 2017); and that thinking through this framework is the reason why he is so poorly understood. 4 The second prism is linked to the Rawlsian influence.…”

“…There is now a wide understanding of what Sen criticizes: he notably rejects the exclusive use of subjective utility for welfare issues, the exclusive focus on aggregative properties to deal with justice issues, and the neglect of democratic values (see in particular Baujard & Gilardone 2017, Martins 2006, 2019. But his constructive proposals are still considered as vague, incomplete or unclear.…”

“…But his constructive proposals are still considered as vague, incomplete or unclear. As a consequence, there are lively debates on several issues: notably on the status of capability in Sen's account of justice (Pressman & Summerfield 2002, Bénicourt 2007, Gasper 2007, Qizilbash 2007, Bonvin & Farvaque 2008, Brighouse & Robeyns 2010, Baujard & Gilardone 2017, Robeyns 2017, Gilardone 2018a, or on the relevance and meaning of the distinction between comparative vs. transcendental approach (e.g. Kandil 2010, Robeyns 2012, Ege, Igersheim & Le Chapelain 2012, 2016 This paper intends to provide an account of Sen's idea of justice, and this allegedly cannot be done by just repeating what he says -if this were sufficient, there would be no debate such as those we have just underlined.…”